ORDER :- In Application No. 3150 of 2003, the applicant has sought for revoking the leave granted to the respondent/plaintiff in order dated 11-10-1999 in Application No. 3582 of 1999.

Application No. 281 of 2003 was earlier filed by him seeking for a direction to the Registry to return the plaint to the plaintiff to be presented before the Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. The applicant is the first defendant in the suit and the suit has been filed under Order 37, Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules read with Order 34, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking for recovery of a sum of Rs.14,54,443/- together with interest and in default, to sell the properties mortgaged. According to the applicant, a suit pertaining to foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of mortgage or charge upon immovable property under Section 16(c), CPC as well as under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated and in the instant case, the plaintiff has admitted that the property, over which the mortgage is claimed, is situated at Pammal Village in Chengalpet District and not within the jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the suit before this Court for the relief prayed for is not maintainable.

It is further stated by the applicant that under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, the suit which is filed under Order 37 of Original Side Rules read with Order 34 of CPC could not be maintained and leave granted for the above suit has to be revoked and the plaint has to be returned since the suit is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

3. According to the respondent, the applicant availed finance from the respondent/ plaintiff and the wife of the applicant, namely, the second defendant, guaranteed due repayment of the amount and the defendants deposited the title deeds of the property described in the schedule as security for the loan availed by them. It is further stated by the respondent that the defendants are residing at Mylapore, within the jurisdiction of this Court and in view of the default committed by the defendants, the suit has been filed for recovery of amounts due under documents and part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court where the amount was borrowed by the first defendant by executing the documents and equitable mortgage was created by deposit of the title deeds as security for the loan availed. The respondent further stated that the mortgaged property is situated outside the jurisdiction and this Court by order dated 11-10-1999 in Application No. 3582 of 1999 granted leave to sue the defendants and hence the suit was filed in the Original Side of this Court invoking the provisions of Letters Patent and Original Side Rules. It is further stated by the respondent that the applicant cannot invoke Section 16, CPC and the suit is mainly for recovery of money and it is not a suit for land as held by this Court in the rulings.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that a suit pertaining to foreclosure, sale or redemption in the case of a mortgage or charge upon immovable property shall be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situated under Section 16(c), CPC as well as under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and the plaintiff in the present case has admitted that the property over which the mortgage is created is situated in Chengalpet District, outside the jurisdiction of this Court and hence the suit for the relief prayed is not maintainable. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the suit is for recovery of money and only when there is default, decree may ensure permitting the recourse to the land in satisfaction of the money claim and hence the suit is not one for land within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant relies on the decision of Federal Cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document